Talk:HMS Atropos

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured .

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Atropos redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Redirect

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

No, not a mis-interpretation of bold. This is an entirely non-notable ship. Please provide citations to third-party sources that offer evidence that anyone cares about this ship enough to provide commentary, critical reaction, etc. Otherwise, restore redirect. i.e., meet WP:BURDEN for editors adding/restoring content. Besides, all this stub does is reiterate the book's WP:PLOT. Besides, all this stub does is reiterate the book's WP:PLOT. --EEMIV (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

When I reverted EEMIV's original unilateral, undiscussed redirect my edit summary stated: "reverting no doubt innocent misinterpretation of WP:BOLD -- discuss on talk page please". EEMIV unilaterally redirected several articles on Horatio Hornblower's fictional vessels, without regard to whether they cited references. The HMS Lydia article did cite C. Northcote Parkinson's Life and Times of Horation Hornblower. All these vessels have been discussed, in detail, in that book, in Forester's Hornblower Companion. The Hornblower novels are among the most popular and influential series of novels ever published. So I stand by my characterization of the unilateral, undiscussed redirect as a misinterpretation of WP:BOLD -- which does not authorize lapses from WP:POINT. EEMIV came directly to make these redirects moments after leaving a note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacecraft in the Honorverse. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please address this article's lack of sources that establish notability -- significant coverage in third-party sources; Parkinson's text, more so even than The Hornblower Companion, is an in-universe recap of the stories (framed as a biography), and hardly establishes notability. This stub itself merely regurgitates parts of the book's WP:PLOT. Rather than waiting WP:BOLD and WP:POINT, please instead justify this article's stand-alone existence through citations to multiple third-party sources that establish notability and offer a real-world perspective

Also, rather than copy-and-pasting across four talk pages, can we just use Talk:HMS Justinian? --EEMIV (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic